Federalist Papers
Copiers, right?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
You want me to Write a Paper? Copy and Paste a Wiki Article about it? Maybe you yourself would like to read the Federalist Papers and such?
I don't see any Debate.... Looks pretty cut and dry to me. Kinda like the 2nd, and you know, some others.
And there's your answer. Searches shall be reasonable. And feel free to find an essay about "reasonableness" and whether all searches require warrants. (Hint: there are essays and they are called cases; just like the one the BP agent cited to the trucker.)
Furthermore, why are you quoting the 4th A? Did they search him? (Other than his person taking him into custody.) His effects apparently were impounded. 4th doesn't actually apply here...
So the 4th amendment doesn't cover seizure of one's person?
I don't see any Debate.... Looks pretty cut and dry to me. Kinda like the 2nd, and you know, some others.
The 4th only mentions searches, which shall be reasonable or based on warrant. Was he searched? Was he seized (as evidence, as opposed to arrested)?
Terry is based on the 4th, but the question is not whether police can arrest, but whether they can detain to conduct a limited search and questioning (pat down only when justified). So Terry is under 4th A jurisprudence, but the 4th doesn't address arrest/detention per se.
There is no debate. The Supreme Court has held that border checks are reasonable.
Good to see gun owners showing some love for federal checkpoints on the streets of the USA.
And the Supremes are always correct and virtuous. All hail our Black-Robed Overlords.
Just because I don't like something doesn't make it unconstitutional
And why are you quoting SCOTUS when you consider them to be oppressors?
And just because 9 black-robe wearing people say something is constitutional doesn't actually make it constitutional (Marbury v. Madison be damned.)
Just because I don't like something doesn't make it unconstitutional
There needs to be an empowering statements.
It's kind of how it works in the real world.
I think most of the founders have gone on record stating the exact opposite.
i'll just leave this here...Implied Powers of Congress
Read the first line in your link.
What is the "expressed power" that pertains to roadside interrogation checkpoints? Cite the clause of the constitution.
There need not be one. Congress has all the implied power, necessary and proper, to establish a uniform rule of naturalization